Huh? I thought Cypress Cove in Rocket Lake is backport of Sunny Cove (Ice Lake), while Willow Cove is Tiger Lake.

GungarThat's because AMD can't do CPUs since 2004, it just happens that Intel is doing really bad right now and we get what we have right now.

I guess you have been living in Antarctica since 2017.

kapone32I guess you have been living in Antarctica since 2017.

AMD CPUs are the best out right now in most metrics. However, could you imagine if Intel didn't rest on their laurels and pushed through that decade of performance dominance? He is, in part, correct. :)

The original ryzen shrank the gap, zen2 further to where it was mostly gaming and single thread performance where they lacked. Zen3 is the first to actually beat it in more things than not. Intel can't even get past 14nm and still has a very performant chip (price and power not withstanding). ;)

BArmsIt's interesting how Intel''s 14nm is keeping some kind of performance parity with TSMC's 7nm, all while having a (dead weight for most gamers) iGPU.

Parity eh? While regressing on core count to keep the power, sort of under control.
But, i see you are conveniently skipping on that part.

And if AMD decide to release, 5700X - 8c16t @ 65w, against the 11900k - 8c16t @ 125w, then what?

fancuckerThe fact that Intel is maintaining parity with a node disadvantage is fantastic. And better yet, 8 cores remains the sweet spot for most applications. With availability I see these as a more compelling offering than Zen 3.

Same point as above, although i find it amusing that you are celebrating the core count regression and spin it as some kind of win.

BArmsIt's interesting how Intel''s 14nm is keeping some kind of performance parity with TSMC's 7nm, all while having a (dead weight for most gamers) iGPU.

The "Core" architecture was amazing when it was new. And it still works pretty good. But its been stationary and easy to target by competitors.

I've got mixed feelings on Rocket Lake, going backwards in core count is not a good look...

EarthDogQuoting Linus... ZOINKS! :p

Seriously though, you should read a few articles and see. Here's a couple to start with...
medium.com/performance-at-intel/core-scaling-and-gaming-performance-how-many-cores-do-you-need-8b45c0f3e4a3
www.redgamingtech.com/investigating-core-count-scaling-and-dx12-vs-dx-vulkan-analysis/

Last time I really looked a couple of months back, there were very few titles that respond well to more than 8c/16t. By the time 8c/16t is going to 'really' hold you back, will be a few years down the road and only in some titles. It's the 4c/8t and 6c/6t parts that can get long in the tooth already (few on the latter also).

Remind me again, how many cores/threads is the CPU in consoles (Hint - 8c/16t)? I also don't imagine RL to go backwards on the core count. I'd imagine the flagship will have 10c/20t like Comet-Lake. But only time will tell on that point.

Maybe look at GN's benchmarks and notice how the 5600X properly setup beats or pairs everything out there and there being no value having more cores?
Again more cores is interesting if you do work with your PC and then again, when you need 8, you need 12, if you do work going for 8 is just silly.
5600X for gaming
5900X and higher for work

5800X if you are drunk and again, that is what this chip is trying to compete with….

ZoneDymoMaybe look at GN's benchmarks and notice how the 5600X properly setup beats or pairs everything out there and there being no value having more cores?
Again more cores is interesting if you do work with your PC and then again, when you need 8, you need 12, if you do work going for 8 is just silly.
5600X for gaming
5900X and higher for work

5800X if you are drunk and again, that is what this chip is trying to compete with….

Are you trying to prove my point? :)

You inferred we need more core/threads with the original post I quoted. Now, you post up how a 8c/16t processor works well.

Thank?! :)

Hi,
Site needs a rumors section

I don't see a lot of point in 8 core either maybe it can do 5.5 on air lol but 8 core really is plenty for most people even potato console chips are 8 core so no matter what tubers think guess they haven't ever heard of virtual machines where more cores do matter, memory as well but I love it when people post click bait to ltt and gn what happened to 2cents guess he's silent on the matter lol :roll:

LOL yeah, the majority of users are happy with 8 Cores or less, so us high end users will have to stick to 8 Cores :roll: , what kinda fallacy is this.

Sure gamers might not benefit from higher core count yet but there is no downside either. With 5900X/5950X high end users can have all the benefits of higher core count but none of the downside, well beside the cost of ownership.

With the 11900K Intel might force AMD to reduce the price of 5800X and that's it, nothing else change, 5900X and 5950X remain king. Kinda disappointing to see Intel going backward with their next gen chip on core count really.

While the 8 vs 6 used to be 4 vs 6. Do we remember the 1090T? At any rate if we are talking about Gaming across the whole spectrum there is an argument that more cores don't make a difference. Where it does matter is it seems to me that Games that have been released in the DX12 era do indeed benefit (in some scenarios) with having more cores and it is becoming more and more common. I do believe that we will see a more nuanced future (much like it is now) where depending on the software and the relationship with the chip manufacturer will make it so that some software does benefit AMD's core count buy in. Where the genius of AMD is and hence the 5600x being the best Gaming CPU is IPC combined with clock speed. I OC my 5600X to 4.7 GHZ and running the Shadow of War benchmark saw a 12.9 ms latency average vs the 2920X with 22.9 ms. Where it is though is 89 FPS in the Firestrike CPU test. Again my 2920 would do about 72 FPS. Though the 2920X feels faster in RTS Games like Total War and CIv 6 but only turn times.

I don't understand why anyone finds it impressive that Intel is able to compete.... They literally have 10x the resources of AMD, there's literally no excuse for Intel not winning outright, and the same can be said with Nvidia who has many more employees than AMD and way more financial resources, they shouldn't even be allowing AMD to compete... That's why it's so impressive that AMD is competing while being so much smaller than both companies.

Now, Intel squeezing more performance out of 14NM would be impressive if it didn't come at the expense of huge power draw and heat.

Now, I'm going to make a prediction that soon after Intel releases rocket lake, AMD will release a Zen3+/XT refresh and it will be on the improved 7nm EUV node. When Zen3 was released I wondered why it was on the same exact node as Zen2, but it makes sense as AMD didn't need the advantages of the improved 7nm node to take the crown and thus could keep costs the same and get more profit. Now, if Intel threatens with rocket lake, AMD can go to the improved 7nm EUV node, squeeze another 100-200Mhz, maybe even 300mhz, take the crown back, slap the XT suffix on the model number, and MOST importantly, justify keeping pricing exactly where it is.

fancuckerThe fact that Intel is maintaining parity with a node disadvantage is fantastic. And better yet, 8 cores remains the sweet spot for most applications. With availability I see these as a more compelling offering than Zen 3.

Node parity? Fantastic? It's the FX-8150 vs. Core i5 2500K all over again, but with role reversed.

The parity is achieved only through shear brute force, which results in immense power draw.

LemmingOverlordYet the benchmark table is still lead by an ageing i9 9940X running on a 2080 Ti... Let's just say it: AotS is a CPU benchmark, not a graphics benchmark.

What people should be asking is how a 14-core 9940X on a 14nm ++++++ node is still giving AMD a run for its money (mind you, the 9940X is $150 cheaper than the 5950X).

That cpu could be on ln2. There could be many factors leading to whatever score. This thread title is really click baity.

Haile SelassieNode parity? Fantastic? It's the FX-8150 vs. Core i5 2500K all over again, but with role reversed.

The parity is achieved only through shear brute force, which results in immense power draw.

I think it depends on the situation and workload really. Voltage is squared you gain more from a node shrink in terms of core count than you do with frequency scaling and voltage efficiency. Obviously pushing frequency and compensating with it for Intel complicates things though. I think Intel is in situation where their rather limited on options based on 14nm. That said 8c chip at the right price point is still a good CPU not everyone is buying a 16c/32t Ryzen chip. Really what I'm saying is I don't think Intel is too much worse off in relation to their 8c chip against one of AMD's 6c/8c chips. Obviously a 8c Intel CPU is going to have a harder time competing credibly against AMD's 12c/16c CPU's, but that's another matter and they realistically it's perfectly normally they'd struggle in that situation both on performance efficiency. I think in those situations though the efficiency struggles become more transparent and are worst case scenario for Intel. The fact is a typical CPU workload isn't 100% CPU usage across all cores though.

ZoneDymoMaybe look at GN's benchmarks and notice how the 5600X properly setup beats or pairs everything out there and there being no value having more cores?
Again more cores is interesting if you do work with your PC and then again, when you need 8, you need 12, if you do work going for 8 is just silly.
5600X for gaming
5900X and higher for work

5800X if you are drunk and again, that is what this chip is trying to compete with….

While the 5600X might look more attractive today, but thanks to consoles the new "meta" is going to be 8 cores for the next 5+ years. The 5800X is going to be better than the 5600X in the next crop of AAA games I'm guessing. Today we're lucky if a PC game scales well beyond 4 cores, it's almost unheard of. I think this is why Intel is throwing down the gauntlet on 8 cores because they know for their target audience (high end but non-HEDT) 8 cores is the perfect number because games are unlikely to scale beyond that.

A better reason a gamer might want a 5900X or 5950X for gaming would be core binning and a second chiplet for a better chance at overclocking.

BArmsIt's interesting how Intel''s 14nm is keeping some kind of performance parity with TSMC's 7nm, all while having a (dead weight for most gamers) iGPU.

Yeah, but keep in mind (German dude actually measured it);

Intel 14nm +++: 24 by 24nm transistors
TSMC 7nm+: 22 by 22nm transistors

(he examined cache in particular).

I think you make a good point on the 8c subject in regard to consoles and coding targets. Until the bar is raised on consoles for developers which are then ported to PC I wouldn't anticipate much upside beyond 8 cores for games on the PC side it's really unrealistic even in best case scenario's. I don't think Intel has much leeway regardless on core count, but if they can get a 8c functioning as well as a 10c with less physical cores that's to their benefit with the way games are designed today and will be for the foreseeable future. I'd say that holds true for AMD as well that's kind of why I feel a 8c Zen3 threadripper would be good quad channel bandwidth and more PCIE lanes, but something akin to the 5600X sweetspot for TR platform's higher TDP and a cheaper entry price into a great socket platform with nicer options down the road.

It is really not going to great for intel, if you ask me. still 14 Nm with who knows how many + after it. Going from 10 cores and back 8 cores and if we shall believe the P stages intel officially released, also a power hungry chip.

I really cant see any reason to buy intel accept if your are a hardcore intel boy or need AVX 512. Else i think Zen 3 is the loggically way to go.

RedelZaVednoWhat's the point of comparing it with Zen3? Zen 3 CPUs have become non existent or priced out of most consumers reach. Current prices of CPUs that are actually in stock in Germany: 5600X = €460 ($540), 5800x/5900x nowhere to be found and 5950X priced at €1149 ($1.355). Even Zen 2 prices got inflated again (3600 €230, 3700x €300). AMD made Intel CPUs look like a bargain, i7 10700F going for €286 and I5 10600KF for €219, i5 10400F €142... AMD has FU big time with Zen3 pricing and non availability. Same is true for AIB's RDNA2 pricings... Sapphire 6800XT costing $770, PowerColor $800 and Asus even $900, I mean what the hell, that's pure insanity. It's not like AMD is beating Intel & Ngreedia by +20% performance margin. Don't get me wrong, Zen3/RDNA2 are great products, but it's a shame they're priced out of the market. Only AMD fanboys will buy them at these prices and that's a real shame.

And here I am sitting without pc for 2-3 months already. Was hoping for zen 3, but prices and availability amd cpu's and nvidia gpus are freaking not funny... looks like will buy zen 4 when it will be released and next amd or nvidia gpu, haha.

The 9700F is like $200's at a MicroCenter if you bios mod a z170 that's a pretty interesting option to be perfectly fair. Actually pretty much all the Coffee Lake chips with the integrated graphics disabled F parts are well price positioned if you bios mod z170 call it Intel's ace in the hole.

This is a great 8c/16t CPU solution. Good for Intel finally improving IPC.

Of course AMD has a significant cost advantage for higher core-count CPUs using chiplet designs, but mainstream really doesn't need more than eight cores. The comments that Intel HEDT is dead is absolutely correct.

This is good for competition.

BArmsWhile the 5600X might look more attractive today, but thanks to consoles the new "meta" is going to be 8 cores for the next 5+ years. The 5800X is going to be better than the 5600X in the next crop of AAA games I'm guessing. Today we're lucky if a PC game scales well beyond 4 cores, it's almost unheard of. I think this is why Intel is throwing down the gauntlet on 8 cores because they know for their target audience (high end but non-HEDT) 8 cores is the perfect number because games are unlikely to scale beyond that.

A better reason a gamer might want a 5900X or 5950X for gaming would be core binning and a second chiplet for a better chance at overclocking.

Consoles have had 8 core CPUs for 7 years and like you said PC games still hardly scale beyond 4 cores. We're not suddenly going to accelerate to scaling with 8 cores in the next 5 years. It's incredibly hard to multithread games as you're always going to be limited by the slowest thread, which is either the main thread or the render thread. That will always be the bottleneck. It's hard on consoles and it's even harder to do on PC as the render thread is much more demanding on PC due to the extra abstraction layers of the API. Lower level APIs like Vulkan & DX12 can help with this, though this requires extra work and talent, it still won't be able to match a console's API.
You can read up on this here. Really interesting article about porting a game (Detroit) that was originally planned to stay on PS4 to PC and the challenges they faced. Consoles are inherently better at multiscaling because draw calls are much faster, which mean you won't be bottlenecked by the render thread as much. The article also shows how you can't just assume that because consoles have 8 core CPUs this easily transfers to a PC environment and results in the good scaling in PC ports.

Also note that devs on consoles only have acces to 7 cores. Even if you were able to transfer multiscaling 1:1 from consoles to PC you'd still only scale with 7 cores max.

I think the 5800x is a waste of money for gaming. It's certainly not worth 150€ more than the 5600x, especially when for most of its lifespan the 5800x won't be much faster at all in games. That might change in 5+ years but is that really worth considering and spending an extra 150€ on? I really don't think it is.

EarthDogAMD CPUs are the best out right now in most metrics. However, could you imagine if Intel didn't rest on their laurels and pushed through that decade of performance dominance? He is, in part, correct. :)

The original ryzen shrank the gap, zen2 further to where it was mostly gaming and single thread performance where they lacked. Zen3 is the first to actually beat it in more things than not. Intel can't even get past 14nm and still has a very performant chip (price and power not withstanding). ;)

And that's why we need competition, to keep the prices down and push the progress.
I've been saying this since Pentium days .. if it wasn't for AMD to this day we would have be still rocking Pentiums 4.
If somebody would just go over my comments on this forum over the years it would look like I'm AMD fanboy but in reality I always cheer for the underdog for sake of competition.
Hell ... thanks to AMD I just bought only my second brand new Intel cpu i7 9700k.
I've owned plenty Intel CPUs but only getting a good deal buying them used because looking at the prices for new AMD always had the better price/perf in my price range over the years.
Intel doesn't make it easy to be a fan ... I found out that i7 9700k doesn't have HT only after I installed the CPU. One gen they remove HT on i7 next gen they decide to add it to i5. Fucking Intel! :D

EarthDogQuoting Linus... ZOINKS! :p

Seriously though, you should read a few articles and see. Here's a couple to start with...
medium.com/performance-at-intel/core-scaling-and-gaming-performance-how-many-cores-do-you-need-8b45c0f3e4a3
www.redgamingtech.com/investigating-core-count-scaling-and-dx12-vs-dx-vulkan-analysis/

Last time I really looked a couple of months back, there were very few titles that respond well to more than 8c/16t. By the time 8c/16t is going to 'really' hold you back, will be a few years down the road and only in some titles. It's the 4c/8t and 6c/6t parts that can get long in the tooth already (few on the latter also).

Remind me again, how many cores/threads is the CPU in consoles (Hint - 8c/16t)? I also don't imagine RL to go backwards on the core count. I'd imagine the flagship will have 10c/20t like Comet-Lake. But only time will tell on that point.

It all depends on the system and what you are using it for really.
All those test to prove that you need more CPU cores are using $1000+ GPUs where in reality in most scenarios the GPU will be the bottleneck.
For example I upgraded from i5 6600k to 9700k and I honestly haven't noticed any difference because I'm using GTX 1070 which eventually will be upgraded to 3060ti where I expect 9700k to come into play.
Also it would be really silly people to claim that Intel still pushing 8c because it's the "sweet spot" it's, we all know what's the story there.

BArmsIt's interesting how Intel''s 14nm is keeping some kind of performance parity with TSMC's 7nm, all while having a (dead weight for most gamers) iGPU.

The current 14nm in my opinion is not the one keeping the performance parity, but rather the CPU architecture. Its obvious 14nm is struggling because of the high power requirement that Intel is very quiet about, in order to keep up with competition. I don't know about Rocket Lake till its released, but taking cue from Comet Lake,the power requirement is not going to get any better.

Also, they are not able to keep up with core count due to insufficient die space (as the node is not dense enough). The core count regressed from Comet Lake to Rocket Lake purely because the latter will use up more transistors, thus, Intel have to reduce the core count to fit within the die size budget. Not to mentioned they integrated the Xe graphics in it, which itself takes up a sizeable space on the die.

r9I found out that i7 9700k doesn't have HT only after I installed the CPU

uhhmmm.....yikes.